Subject: Re: Proselytizing (was Re: Homosexuality)
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 17:36:42 +1100
From: Richard Kerr <>
Organization: University of Sydney
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian

Rowland Croucher wrote:
>
> ‘Most Baptists/Evangelicals would discipline/remove from membership a
practising
> homosexual or adulterer… But about 70% of their members who are married
for the
> first time are not virgins – and Baptists/Evangelicals also believe
fornication is
> just as bad as the other two. Leaving aside the issue of whether porneia
refers to
> committed people outside a formal marriage: why the selective
disciplining?’

A note from personal experience.

Prior to my marriage I had a relationship with a young woman that was,
well, pursued with the vigour that only youth can bring. I also knew at
the time that it was R-O-N-G wrong. I couldn’t bear the thought of
marrying her and the whole thing was an incredible mess. It took me some
time to extricate myself and I still regret the harm I caused her and
myself in the process.

The Church didn’t discpline me at the time, but they should have. (Maybe
they didn’t know it was happening? It would have been difficult to miss,
I think.)

Marianne, my wife, and I travelled together for a year in ’91. We
announced our engagement when we got home. It will be obvious to anyone
who’s been in a similar circumstance, or seen my wife, that we could not
possibly have been “chaste” while we were away. I think I would have
exploded!

We had a long distance relationship for a year before we married in Dec
’92, and I just don’t think we could have pickled it for that long.

As you can probably guess by the tone of my writing I regret absolutely
nothing from that time. We both knew we were beans for each other and
both absolutely certain we would stay together. We were good for each
other’s faith, too.

If a church had disciplined us for our relationship I think I would have
laughed at it.

So… after much thought about it here’s my spin on it. Not all sex
before marriage is equal. Remembering that marriage as we know it only
emerged in the late 1800’s, I simply don’t think its that important that
you get the ceremony in at the right time (which could be pretty
tricky…). What does matter is that the partners involved both fully
understand the importance of what is going on and are fully committed to
each others growth in a permanent, mutually faithful relationship that
includes God.

Once again, this is going to make some people really nervous because it
relies on people being honest with God, themselves and each other. After
all I could have, and did, lie about the relationship I described
earlier. On the other hand, forcing people into shotgun marriages didn’t
work, either. We know that many people ended up in unhappy, unfruitful
marriages that were doomed by the immaturity of the of one or both
partners.

I would rather see people making honest choices in a supportive
environment, frankly discussing and fully understanding the consequences
of their actions, than being frog marched down the aisle in the name of
legalism. My own experience is that freedom and openness lead to greater
Godliness; legalism and repression will never stamp out sin and never
contribute to growth.

Subject: Re: Proselytizing (was Re: Homosexuality)
Date: Thu, 04 Dec 1997 13:00:40 +1100
From: Gordon Coleman <>
Organization: University of New South Wales
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian

I’ll happily hoe into this debate…. But first, let me say I’m wanting
to deal here with general principles – they ceratinly apply to Richard’s
case, but I don’t want to attack that front on.

Marcelo Cantos wrote:
>
> (Christian Graus) writes:
>
> > On Wed, 03 Dec 1997 17:36:42 +1100, Richard Kerr
> > <> wrote:
> >
> > >We had a long distance relationship for a year before we married in Dec
> > >’92, and I just don’t think we could have pickled it for that long.
> ..
> > >If a church had disciplined us for our relationship I think I would
have
> > >laughed at it.
> >
> > I have a few observations.
> >
> > 1/ By saying you would have laughed at the authority of the church,
> > standing on the bible, and that you ‘knew’ you were right for each
> > other & each others faith, I can only conclude that you were basing
> > your Christianity not on the bible, but on your emotions. I cannot
> > see how being totally in love/lust with a person you where having sex
> > with would leave you feeling other than that she was ‘good for your
> > faith’, even if it meant you where not obeying the bible together.
>
> OK. Since this topic has once again wandered into the now familiar
> territory of what exactly the Bible clearly teaches, I would ask, what
> _does_ the Bible teach? When is a couple married according to
> scripture? (This has been discussed before, I know, but this latest
> thread might just provide a new angle).

Funnily enough, I actually agree with Christian on this one. What is
marriage? Are we obligated to observe the law of the land in relation
to marriage? Are we married once we make that commitment “in our
hearts” or between ourselves?

I have no problem with the argument that modern marriage differs from
the marriages described in the Bible. But that is neither here nor
there when we come to this debate. Marriage is a commitment made
between two people – then as now. Marriage is a commitment made before
God and man – then as now. It is a public declaration of commitment. A
“try before you buy” mentality doesn’t belong.

I guess it’s fair to say the Bible doesn’t give a direct answer to the
question of “sex _before_ marriage”, as opposed to “sex _outside_
marriage” – and that’s the basis on which modern Christians may try to
justify their actions.

But the primary message of the Bible in relation to Christian living
isn’t “Do what seems right”. It’s “Do what’s right”. The most
important thing is _not_ gratifying myself but glorifying God – and this
involves a commitment to holy living.

_Why_ can’t people wait? Because the “social convention” that we have a
big wedding is more important than holiness, than doing what is right.
I don’t know if _I_ could have taken a lengthy trip with my wife during
our courtship and remained chaste – but I didn’t test it to find out.
It was more important to be sure that we were doing what was right in
the eyes of God (and man) than to gratify our desire. So we avoided the
temptation. Do _I_ have any regrets? No: I know that I did what was
right and sought to honour God by my actions when I was single; and now,
in the context of our marriage (before God and man) we express the union
that we committed ourselves to on the day we married.

I agree with Richard that legalism is an insidious poison that all too
easily creeps into our churches, and into our lives and relationships.
But there is _still_ such a thing as obedience. It’s as simple as
that. To accuse those who would encourage young people to remain chaste
until they are married (_officially_, although I hate to use that word)
as being legalistic is a pretty poor way of dismissing their concern for
Godliness. And to say “I _couldn’t_ have remained chaste” is false: we
can deny ourselves all sorts of things when it is necessary – it’s a
matter of taking the desire to be holy seriously.

Nuff said for the moment. I’d be interested to know if the view I
espouse is held by others here, or if I’m more likely to be relegated to
the lunatic fringe (save me a seat, Chris – here I come ;-P).

Mike (Hore), any comments to make from your vast experience? And
Rowland, by all means hold your view aside for now, but it’d be nice to
get a response from you too…. eventually…..

Regards,

Gordon

Subject: Re: Proselytizing (was Re: Homosexuality)
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 1997 16:54:06 +1100
From: Richard Kerr <>
Organization: University of Sydney
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian

Gordon Coleman wrote:
[snip]
> What is
> marriage? Are we obligated to observe the law of the land in relation
> to marriage? Are we married once we make that commitment “in our
> hearts” or between ourselves?
>
> I have no problem with the argument that modern marriage differs from
> the marriages described in the Bible. But that is neither here nor
> there when we come to this debate. Marriage is a commitment made
> between two people – then as now. Marriage is a commitment made before
> God and man – then as now. It is a public declaration of commitment. A
> “try before you buy” mentality doesn’t belong.

The history of marriage is an interesting thing. If you can stand yet
another pompous post from a know-it-all like me I’ll give you a potted
version of my understanding so you can see why I believe what I do. Feel
free to skip this if you don’t want to read another lecture from
Richard.

When Genesis was written marriage was a way of cementing loyalties
between clans. If you let your daughter marry one of your herdsman you
were implying an oath of loyalty between your clans. People were married
when it was accepted by the elders.

By the time of the relatively urban New Testament marriages were
arranged by families, rather than clans, with one eye on social status.
“Would it be good for my daughter to marry a carpenter?”. People were
married when it was accepted by their parents.

It’s not until the 1800’s that people could choose to marry on the basis
of personal preference rather than familial obligation, exceptions
proving the rule of course. But the tyranny of the family, as we would
see it, was replaced by the tyranny of the church. “Is this person a
Protestant? Forget it!”. People were married when it was accepted by the
church.

In the 1990’s in Australia almost nobody cares about the blessing of a
church. People are married when they decide to be committed to each
other.

The real question Christians have to answer is how can they truly honour
God in this environment?

In my early twenties I saw many young Christian people pushed, and I use
the word deliberately, into marriages because their churches were
obsessed with keeping them from the wickedness of extramarital sex. Our
churches had failed to tackle the difficult issue of working with whole
families to ensure that the children were mature enough to make good
decisions, so they took the easy way out and blessed bad ones.

Easy, that is, until you have to start throwing people out of your
church for breaking their vows. The divorce rate for Christians was
about the same as it is for everyone else last time I looked. I think
our unrealistic acceptance of the convention of marriage is at the heart
of this. Rather than encouraging our young people into truly questioning
their motives in relationships we use subtle pressure, and sometimes a
jolly good thumping, to force them into ill advised marriages.

I would rather see Christians living within the regulatory framework of
our society, _as_ _we_ _always_ _have_ done_, modelling good choices and
good relationships than pretending that we have some ability to bestow
or withhold the blessing of God. This relies more on the integrity of
individuals and will make lots of people nervous, but what choice is
there?

> I guess it’s fair to say the Bible doesn’t give a direct answer to the
> question of “sex _before_ marriage”, as opposed to “sex _outside_
> marriage” – and that’s the basis on which modern Christians may try to
> justify their actions.

On the other hand you could just as easily say that churches are
mistaking a relatively recent historical role for the Law of God.

[snip]
> _Why_ can’t people wait? Because the “social convention” that we have a
> big wedding is more important than holiness, than doing what is right.

The social convention of having a big wedding is important to us, but
why do you think the Godliness of the timing of a couple’s first sexual
encounter (however you define it) has anything to do with the
convention?

> I agree with Richard that legalism is an insidious poison that all too
> easily creeps into our churches, and into our lives and relationships.
> But there is _still_ such a thing as obedience. It’s as simple as
> that. To accuse those who would encourage young people to remain chaste
> until they are married (_officially_, although I hate to use that word)
> as being legalistic is a pretty poor way of dismissing their concern for
> Godliness.

How do you know what obedience in this matter is, Gordon? Which of the
verses Christian quoted, or any other verse for that matter, gives
churches, rather than clans, families or individuals, the right to set
God’s timetable for the blessing of an ungodly relationship, or the
right to declare Godly relationships as suitable for discipline?

I understand what a struggle this shift to individual moral
responsibility, rather than clan, family or societal (in the guise of
the church) responsibility, but I honestly pray that my son will grow to
find the strength he needs to find answers to these questions
internally, rather than in a set of rules which masquerade as objective
truths while always requiring interpretation.

[snip]
> Nuff said for the moment. I’d be interested to know if the view I
> espouse is held by others here, or if I’m more likely to be relegated to
> the lunatic fringe (save me a seat, Chris – here I come ;-P).

My guess is that you’ll get more support than I will on this one.

—
Regards,

Richard Kerr

Subject: Re: Proselytizing (was Re: Homosexuality)
Date: 04 Dec 1997 23:24:22 +1100
From: Marcelo Cantos <>
Organization: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Australia.
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian

(Christian Graus) writes:

> >OK. Since this topic has once again wandered into the now familiar
> >territory of what exactly the Bible clearly teaches, I would ask, what
> >_does_ the Bible teach? When is a couple married according to
> >scripture? (This has been discussed before, I know, but this latest
> >thread might just provide a new angle).
>
> When is a couple married ? Well, if they are married by the sexual
> act, what is the meaning of the word ‘fornication’ ?

Actually, I never even implied that. I was hoping that we might
explore the possibility of marriage being defined absent a ceremony,
ie: being framed in terms of a solemn and personally binding
committment rather than a cultural ritual. The question of sexual
union defining marriage never actually entered my mind.

FWIW, I tend to lean towards Gordon’s position, though I disagree with
his suggestion that Richard’s scenario represents a “try before you
buy” attitude. I think Richard was pretty clear that they considered
themselves absolutely and irrevocably bound to each other. The
argument could be made, I guess, that Richard and his then girlfriend
(fiancee?) were more committed to each other at that point than many
people are on their wedding day.

This is why I raise the issue: what makes the marriage, the ceremony
or the vow? And what makes the vow, the words or the intent (or
possibly both)?

> I would suggest that marriage is a contract between two people
> before God and it exists when the man on the street would answer in
> response to the information regarding the situation that yes, these
> two are husband and wife.

The man on the street would probably answer that the couple living
next door who have never said any kind of vows are husband and wife
(defacto, that is). I would be sorely pressed to posit this as a
definitive answer.

Cheers,
Marcelo

Subject: Re: Proselytizing (was Re: Homosexuality)
Date: Fri, 05 Dec 1997 14:49:02 +1100
From: Richard Kerr <>
Organization: University of Sydney
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian

Marcelo Cantos wrote:
>
> FWIW, I tend to lean towards Gordon’s position, though I disagree with
> his suggestion that Richard’s scenario represents a “try before you
> buy” attitude.

Thank you for giving me the benefit of the doubt, Marcello. “Try before
you buy” is one of the biggest lies perpretrated by our society. If you
aren’t sure you should be in the relationship you shouldn’t be in the
relationship.

> I think Richard was pretty clear that they considered
> themselves absolutely and irrevocably bound to each other. The
> argument could be made, I guess, that Richard and his then girlfriend
> (fiancee?) were more committed to each other at that point than many
> people are on their wedding day.

Absolutely. We have a dual problem in our churches. One is that we
denigrate (!) marriage by making it into the ceremony you have to go
through before you have sex, “You’ve gotta do it before you do it”. I
have seen marriages come and go because the people in them were
encouraged into unwise partnerships well before they were mature enough
to handle them simply because the Church feared the potential wickedness
of sex outside marriage. Which is the greater sin?

The other side of the coin is that we don’t really help young people
fully understand what it takes to have a good marriage. That is, you
need to be sober in your understanding of your faith, yourself, your
partner and your relationship. Pay more attention to your own doubts and
your own need for growth and less attention to people who will try to
pressure you to do one thing or another.

When we have found ourselves, then found our partners we have to go
through this ridiculous charade of participating in an expensive
function that takes six months or more to organise. And then we kid
ourselves that God congratulates us for waiting.

I ask myself the question “What would I rather see my son, now five
weeks old, do? Rush into an early marriage thinking that the ceremony
makes an unwise relationship acceptable or think hard, make a firm
commitment and keep the ceremony in perspective?

—
Regards,

Richard Kerr

Subject: Re: Proselytizing (was Re: Homosexuality)
Date: 05 Dec 1997 09:20:05 +1100
From: Joel Hynoski <>
Organization: Open Technology Group
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian

(Christian Graus) writes:

> On Thu, 4 Dec 1997 10:34:04 +1000, “Scott Gilbert”
> <> wrote:
>
> > From the description, I would have to assume he would laugh
> >at the authority of the church because it was -not- standing on the
> >bible. The marriage ceremony is, as he states, a relatively modern
> >rite. To all intents and purposes, the relationship he describes -is-
> >marriage. For this reason, all the scripture in the world condemning
> >sex -outside- marriage is inapplicable.
>
> So you believe a de facto relationship qualifies as marriage ? Even
> society does not agree when it comes to the finer points of the Law.

Don’t get too used to it Christian, but I agree with you again!

However:

Scott (and Richard originally) have brought up an interesting issue
here. This is: when is a marriage a marriage? I discussed this at
length with pastors and friends a while ago, and came up with the
following conclusion:

Sex before marriage is not wrong in and of the sexual act.

Before everyone screams “But the Bible says….” I’d like to
clarify. I beleive that God considers two people as ‘married’ as soon
as they are “one flesh” i.e. via the sexual act. So when they are
‘married’ in this way, when they break up it is considered ‘divorce’
and we all can read what God thinks of that through Jesus’ words.

The point of the ceremony is for (i) legal and (ii) social reasons.
It is also to declare openly to the world the pledge of commitment
which should be the basis for any sexual relationship.

So why didn’t Richard, when he “knew” that his relationship with his
wife was right and proper and in the right spirit, just go to a
registry office and make the commitment secure? The big ceremony could
have waited, but the legal and formal commitment would be there.

De facto is a strange mishmash of law. My mother is in a de facto
relationship, since her divorce from my father 16 years ago. Her de
facto moved in about 6 years ago. He is legally entitled to a portion
(if not all) of my mother’s superannuation should she perish. They
are, in the eyes of the law, married (hence “common law” marriage). In
the sight of God, well, it’s a bit detailed. Try reading the discourse
on this in John White’s book “Eros Defiled”. It is quite a
contemporary and balanced explanation.

> > I would be interested in your thoughts on what constitutes
> >marriage, I would take the line from genesis (I think) which speaks
> >of a man leaving his father and mother and becoming one with his
> >wife. When a relationship meets these criteria, I would regard that
> >relationship as being marriage. The ceremony itself is, in my opinion,
> >unnecessary window dressing.
>
> So if sex=marriage, why is fornication different to adultery ?
>
> (Heb 13:4 NKJV) Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed
> undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge.

So what about the commitment, Scott? Is there a real, formal, proper
commitment between two people just having sex? What is the barrier (if
it is “so right”) to the full commitment being made, at least at a
registry? The marriage rite is similar to that of becoming a Christian
— an inner commitment and change _spoken_ in public to assert
commitment. And evidence following the commitment being made (in
marriage, the loving relationship and a willingness to die for the
partner, and in salvation [tongues?] {Had to throw that in,
Chris…:) } )

> If we can have sex as soon as we ‘know’ that a person is ‘right for
> us’, what would you say to your sixteen year old daughter when she
> gets her first Christian boyfriend ? For her to have sex is legal, and
> I am sure in her own mind she will have found the ‘right one’. Do we
> create our own standards that are less than the worlds, or do we
> uphold a higher standard than the fallen world around us ?

Christian: 101% support here!

Joel

Subject: Re: Proselytizing (was Re: Homosexuality)
Date: 05 Dec 1997 23:36:39 +1100
From: Marcelo Cantos <>
Organization: Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Australia.
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian

(Christian Graus) writes:

> Probably, and that is a modern tragedy. But aren’t you now saying
> that Richard was NOT fornicating simply because he ‘knew’ it to be
> right ?

Not at all. I am assuming that the committment is considered by the
couple to be absolute and final and the vows to be effectively in
action, with the only thing left temporarily undone being the formal
ceremony.

What I am suggesting (and I don’t for one minute state that this is my
belief, I am merely speculating) is that Richard was, in his own mind,
already married in his and God’s sight.

> Does the Bible support this idea ? As I have said elsewhere –
> what do we tell our 16 year olds, when they feel their first boy/girl
> friend is the ‘right one’, and are two years from being legally able
> to marry ? It all becomes a kettle of worms unless we accept a simple
> definition – marriage is marriage when no-one can dispute it to be so.

Actually, I tend to agree. My experience (which, frankly, is not far
removed from Richard’s) is that when you are in a relationship it is
easy to convince yourself that this is “it” and you have found the
person you are going to spend the rest of your life with. To me the
waiting game involved in the complexities of the traditional wedding
provide a cooling off period of sorts and gives the couple a strong
sense of the seriousness of what they are doing. I believe that a
waiting period is essential to prevent hasty decisions being made.

Now, while I tend to think that Richard’s approach is wrong, I think
that this too is what he is aiming at, to introduce a better sense of
the seriousness of marriage and the importance of making the right
decision.

> >This is why I raise the issue: what makes the marriage, the ceremony
> >or the vow? And what makes the vow, the words or the intent (or
> >possibly both)?
>
> Marriage is made when two people make a public commitment to one
> another for life. Our society has a format for this which involves
> our government, and that format is what we are bound to, if we are
> going to ‘live by the law of the land’.

This is to me just another can of worms. Right now, defacto marriages
don’t enjoy quite the same status as traditional marriages. However,
that situation will not always remain so.

Hence, my question is, when society gives defacto marriages equal
status to traditional marriages, will you be happy for your children
to enter defacto relationships, with the obvious proviso that they are
wholly and unconditionally committed to their defacto spouse?

> >> I would suggest that marriage is a contract between two people
> >> before God and it exists when the man on the street would answer in
> >> response to the information regarding the situation that yes, these
> >> two are husband and wife.
>
> >The man on the street would probably answer that the couple living
> >next door who have never said any kind of vows are husband and wife
> >(defacto, that is). I would be sorely pressed to posit this as a
> >definitive answer.
>
> I doubt it – our society still makes legal definition between married
> and defacto.

As above. What are you going to say to your children who will likely
grow up in a society that makes no such distinction?

Cheers,
Marcelo

Subject: Re: Proselytizing (was Re: Homosexuality)
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 18:20:55 -1000
From: Rowland Croucher <>
Organization: John Mark Ministries
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian

Joel Hynoski wrote:

> (Christian Graus) writes:
>
> On Tue, 02 Dec 1997 21:17:33 -1000, Rowland Croucher
> > <> wrote:
> >
> > >’Most Baptists/Evangelicals would discipline/remove from membership a
practising
> > >homosexual or adulterer… But about 70% of their members who are
married for the
> > >first time are not virgins – and Baptists/Evangelicals also believe
fornication is
> > >just as bad as the other two. Leaving aside the issue of whether
porneia refers to
> > >committed people outside a formal marriage: why the selective
disciplining?’

> Are the stats that are quoted there actual “always been in the church”
> figures, or do they include new converts? I was converted at 18. I had
> had sex before that time. I was married not a virgin. Should I have
> been disciplined for the sex I had before I was a Christian?

Maybe by God, then forgiven/accepted by the church…

> You see my point? The figures really don’t say much at all. If
> adultery or homosexuality is practised by a *member* of the church
> while she/he is a member and born-again, and a believer then it is
> right that disciplinary action is taken by leadership. How can one be
> punished for pre-salvation/commitment transgressions?
>
> Rowland, it may be necessary for you to show in your stats whether
> they are an accurate reflection of a problem, or an exagerration by
> ‘cooking the books’.

They’re the total number of unmaried people who are members of the
churchwhen they marry.
The virginity was lost, presumably either before or after
conversion (I don’t have stats on that)…

> I agree that all sin should be dealt with uniformly. I’m not disputing
> that, I am only disputing the basis for your assertion that it is not
> treated similarly.
>
> I have been on boards that have disciplined people for sex before
> marriage, as well as adultery, and the discipline has been identical.
> Can you cite real situations (sanitised, of course) to support your
> assertions?

Your Board’s action was the exception: most, sorry almost all,
Churches haven’t exercised that sort of discipline among their members’ member-kids…

> Joel

Subject: Re: Proselytizing (was Re: Homosexuality)
Date: Wed, 03 Dec 1997 21:51:19 -1000
From: Rowland Croucher <>
Organization: John Mark Ministries
Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian

Christian Graus wrote:

> >Your Board’s action was the exception: most, sorry almost all,
churcheshaven’t exercised
> >that sort of discipline among their members’ member-kids…
>
> I just saw this – church discipline is administered by a board ? On
> what basis is a group discussion required in a situation where
> scripture is clear ? Or have I misread something ?

Yes you have, probably: church discipline is administered by people – anda
board of elders
seems to me to be the scriptural sort of group to do it.

Scripture may be clear (though in the case of porneia, Scripture may be
clear
in a different way to our cultural interpretation), but Scripture is then
_applied_
by the church’s leaders.

Chris, I’d be very surprised if this is not how it works in your church…
eh?

—